I don’t think their work shows anything either way because it’s shoddy and misrepresented in the write-up and not well-done in the execution. I don’t know the people. They may be well-meaning and got caught up. Ironically, that’s an actual problem in academia and elsewhere!
That’s like saying auto ethnographies are clearly superior because those fields don’t fall for the kind of fraud The Lancet fell for. Arguing against autoethnographies as a method is fine but that’s not what they’re doing. I think it’s pretty clear that trio is on purpose shoddy.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
But the fatal paradox is that they're making an unfalsifiable *normative* claim about how one *ought* to produce knowledge and how epistemology ought to be. They are apparently unaware of the entire field of philosophy science that has been having this debate for nearly 100 years
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.